
V_Lv\ 










» 









Class 3T 15-5 
Book_i-JySr.J. 














» 















■ 




















• • 




























« 














✓ 






/ 















* 

















■ 






( 




























































« 


I 










\ 





























I 











r 





























ADDRESS 



OK 


CIVIL GOVERNMENT 


DELIVERED BEFORE THE 


NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY, 


FEBRUARY 25th, 1847. 


AT THE 


SOCIETY LIBRARY LECTURE ROOM. 



PRINTED BY B. R. BARLOW, 

13 OHAMBERS-STREET. 


1847 . 








o. 


i 


t 

-*i 


New York, March 2, 1847. 

Dear Sir: By favoring the N. Y. Typographical Society with a copy, as 
far as your memory serves you, of the Address lately delivered by yourself before 
that body, you will greatly oblige 

Yours respectfully, 

B. R. BARLOW. 

Chairman Lecture Committee, N. Y. T. S. 
Hon. Ely Moore, Broadway, New York. 


New-York, March 8, 1847. 

Dear Sir ; In compliance with your request, conveyed to me through your 
note of the 2d inst. I have the honour to transmit to you a copy of the Address 
delivered before your Society on the 25th ult. 

It is proper to state, perhaps, that some of the authorities cited in the Address 
as well as a portion of the facts and arguments—touching the right of the people 
to institute, change or abolish government—were, substantially, introduced by 
me some two or three years since, in the course of a public discussion, on what 
was then called the “ Rhode Island Question.” 

I remain with great respect, 

Your friend and fellow citizen, 

ELY MOORE. 

B. R. Barlow, Esq., 

Ch’n L*ec. Com. N. Y. T. Society. 




ADDRESS. 


The subject which I propose to discuss before you this 
evening, is one of profound and absorbing interest, involv¬ 
ing the great problem of human rights and human liberty, 
viz : that of Civil Government;—its importance—its origin 
—the object of its creation, and the principles on which it 
should be founded and administered. 

It is not necessary that I should dwell, at length, upon 
the importance of civil government. You, in common with 
the rest of mankind, acknowledge both its importance and 
necessity. In every age, and in every nation of the world, 
the mind of man has been directed to that subject, and 
more or less employed in its investigation. And yet, the 
question still remains undisposed of, and men, even now, 
enter upon it with as much earnestness and zeal, and with 
as great a diversity of opinion and argument, as if it were 
novel in its nature, and had just been broached for the first 
time—evincing the interest with which it is, and ever has 
been regarded by man, to be deep, anxious, and abiding. 
This is natural and proper, for no subject can more nearly, 
or deeply interest m^n than that of Civil Government— 
save his future and eternal destiny. “ There are but two 
subjects in nature”—says Sir Henry Savile—“ that are 
worthy of the thoughts of a wise man—namely, religion and 
government.” 

Important and interesting as the question of Civil Gov¬ 
ernment must have been to mankind in all ages and coun¬ 
tries, yet we may safely affirm that, in no age, or country, 
did it involve such momentous results as in this? The reason 
of this is obvious. In no former era were the powers or capa¬ 
cities of the people—especially their political powers—so 
fully and generally developed, as they are in the present. 


/ 


6 


In proportion as the elements or principles of civil govern¬ 
ment are evolved, so does the political power acquire ad¬ 
ditional magnitude and momentum. And as that power is 
greater, and more widely diffused than at any former 
period—especially in this country—so must be its relative 
effects, either for good or for evil; for power, when put 
into operation, must necessarily educe either the one or the 
other. The principle, therefore, which influences or governs 
this power, should be founded in right and justice ; other¬ 
wise, wrong and injustice would, necessarily and inevita¬ 
bly, be produced by its operation. Hence arises the ob¬ 
vious necessity that the people should make themselves 
thoroughly acquainted, not only with all the principles and 
powers, but also with the legitimate duties and functions 
of civil government. Without this knowledge, they can 
never be enabled to apply a proper test to the exercise of 
political power—can never detect its abuses, nor guard 
against its encroachments. 

Would the mass of the people but adopt the analytical 
method of investigation—touching the subject of civil gov¬ 
ernment—and trace political science to its simplest elements, 
and reduce it to its constituent parts, they would speedily 
reap an ample reward for their labours. For, then, so 
comprehensive, and accurate would be their knowledge of 
government—whether as regards its principles or its de¬ 
tails—that the efforts of the political charlatan and dema¬ 
gogue, would not only be harmless, but amusing. And 
where lies the difficulty ? Not, certainly, in the subject 
itself. Every action of human government, which influen¬ 
ces the affairs of men, is reducible to ascertained principles. 
Political science, like every other, is but a collection of 
final truths—a body of established results ; and entirely 
capable of being understood and appreciated. 

The laws of finance, of commerce, of agriculture, in fact 
all the laws which relate to the social compact and civil 
government, are as fixed and determinate in their general 
results, as the laws of light, heat and gravitation. Hence, 


7 


it is evident that, if the mass of the people were thoroughly 
conversant with all the principles of government, and with 
the effect of the exercise of its powers upon their interests 
and conditions, there could not well exist any diversity of 
opinion among them, on that subject. No factions could 
arise to disturb the public tranquility, or endanger the 
public welfare. A demonstrated truth , admits of no contro¬ 
versy—forbids all party feuds and party distinctions. I 
now turn to the question of the origin of civil government. 

On the origin of political society, or of civil government, 
the opinions advanced by different writers are various and 
contradictory. It is not my intention, at this time, to at¬ 
tempt an analysis of those conflicting theories. It is suffi¬ 
cient for our purpose to state that they may be comprised 
under two heads, viz : Authority and Equality . The com¬ 
mon, or prevailing opinion, however, is that which refers 
the origin of society and of government to the primitive es¬ 
tablishment of families. By a union of families, it is said, 
tribes were formed ; and by a union of tribes colonies and 
nations were formed. It not unfrequently happens, how¬ 
ever, that governments are formed by the accidental asso¬ 
ciation of individuals, as I shall instance in the course' of 
my remarks. But however government may have origina¬ 
ted—whether from voluntary consent, from acquiesence 
and prescription, or from positive authority—I deem it but 
of little moment in determining the true source of sovereign¬ 
ty—or in ascertaining the benefits which result from the social 
state. Nor is it necessary, in order to ascertain the princi¬ 
ples on which governments should be founded, to trace the 
history of their origin. The great question is not, how did 
governments originate ? but, what is the principle which 
lies at their bases; what the nature and character of the 
first rules or laws by which primitive societies were gov¬ 
erned, and what the advantages which result from the un¬ 
ion of families and the organization of society. These are 
important and interesting questions, and I solicit your 
candid attention while I attempt to discuss them. I as- 


8 


sume, is the first place, that society is the natural element 
of humanity—the only element in which it can exist, and 
consequently, that the social state is an emenation from 
man’s true and proper nature—his social nature . And, in 
the second place, that civil society, as such, is the result 
of a mutual understanding between individuals to estab¬ 
lish certain rules or regulations which shall be binding 
upon all who may enter into such agreement or compact— 
the object always being security and protection . 

This compact necessarily supposes certain covenants. 
These covenants imply conditions. It is these conditions 
which are to be considered as the first laws by which 
societies were governed. These, also, are the origin of all 
the political regulations which have been successively es¬ 
tablished.* 

It was not indispensable that either the first covenant, or 
the conditions on which they were founded, should be ex¬ 
press. It was sufficient, in many cases, that they were 
tacitly understood. Such was, for example, the rule not to 
injure each other; that of being faithful to our engage¬ 
ments ;—not to rob another of his lawful possessions ;— 
that he who would disturb society be restrained, &c. 
There was no need of any particular solemnities in estab¬ 
lishing such rules and maxims as these. They derive 
their origin from those sentiments of equity and justice 
which God has implanted in the hearts of all men. They 
are taught us by that internal light, which enables us to 
distinguish between right and wrong; dictated by that 
voice of nature, which will cause itself to be heard—if not 
always obeyed. 

We are not, therefore, to consider the first laws of society 
as the fruit of any particular deliberation—confirmed by 
solemn and premeditated acts. They were established by 
a tacit consent—a kind of engagement to which men are 
naturally inclined. Even political authority was estab¬ 
lished very much in the same manner. This kind of tacit 

* See De Goguet on the Origin of Laws, &c. &c.—Vol. 1, Part 1, B. I. 


agreement was also the origin of those customs, which, for a 
long time, were the only laws known among mankind. 
These early customs or usages served them for rules and 
precedents in their decisions ; and these customs were 
founded only upon certain compacts, by which men tacitly 
bound themselves to each other. These, I repeat, were 
the conditions annexed to these covenants, which we must 
regard as the first laws. 

But these first laws, the only ones known at the com¬ 
mencement of society, were not sufficient to preserve the 
peace, secure the safety, or effectually promote the welfare 
of mankind. They were neither sufficiently known, dis¬ 
tinct, nor comprehensive. To remedy these defects, it 
was found necessary to invest with authority some individ¬ 
ual or number of individuals, whose province and duty it 
should be to establish and enforce certain definite regula¬ 
tions. These definite regulations have very properly ob¬ 
tained the name of positive laws. These positive laws, 
we may readily suppose, were but very few at first, and 
respected only the most general interests of society. But 
few and imperfect as they were yet they were necessary 
to the existence of the civil or political state. The political 
art, however, has employed an engine well nigh as potent 
and efficient as the municipal law: I allude to those two 
main springs of human action—those salutary prejudices 
which have so much force among all nations, and which often 
supply the place of laws, and even of virtue itself: the love 
of glory and the fear of shame. 

There are, as we all know, certain social virtues—such 
as generosity, candour, probity, &c, for which the civil 
law provides no reward. There are also certain social 
vices—such as avarice, deceit, ingratitude, &c., for which 
it provides no punishment. And yet, these great defects 
of the law—unavoidable, I admit, in most cases—are sup¬ 
plied and remedied, in a great measure, by the operation 
of those salutary prejudices and customs which are the 
natural fruits of society, and to which I have just alluded. 



10 


Honour, that sentiment so quick and delicate, is the legi¬ 
timate offspring of the social state. Public and private 
interest have concurred to form it. The advantage and 
utility which society found to result from certain sentiments 
and from certain actions, led them naturally to regard 
these sentiments as the most precious attribute of human 
nature. By a necessary consequence of these same mo¬ 
tives, they found themselves inclined to express the highest 
esteem and consideration for the person possessed of these 
desirable qualities. The ambition of obtaining this univer¬ 
sal favour, affection, and esteem, is a principle from which 
society has reaped the greatest benefits ; a principle which 
has supplied the wanti of legal rewards for virtuous actions. 

With respect to those actions which are pernicious to 
good order and public tranquility, though no particular 
punishment could be decreed by law, society upon the 
same principle, has equally provided that they should not 
remain unpunished. Custom and opinion founded on the 
tacit consent of all societies, have in all times pronounced 
a sentence of dishonour and infamy on these vices; a sen¬ 
tence not the less real or formidable that it was not pre¬ 
scribed by any particular law, or pronounced by any 
magistrate. 

Notwithstanding there are no express laws for rewarding 
the social virtues, yet those who practice them seldom miss 
their reward—seldom fail to attract the esteem and admira¬ 
tion of the public ; rewards so much the more gratifying, as 
they are voluntary, and not the effect of any law. And so 
with regard to certain vicious actions, which though not 
punished by magistrates, seldom escape with impunity. 
The scorn, contempt and indignation of the wise and good, is 
their punishment. And though these sentences proceed 
not from the legislative power, and are not invested with 
the authority of the law, are not the less infallible in their 
effect, whether by recompensing virtue, by giving those 
who cultivate it all the distinctions which are capable of 
gratifying a rational self-love ; or in punishing vice, by 


11 


depriving the vicious and abandoned of the greatest com¬ 
forts and blessings of society # 

In placing these salutary sentiments —the desire for ap¬ 
probation, and the^ dread of censure, or “the love of glory 
and the fear of shame”—thus prominently among the ad¬ 
vantages and blessings which result exclusively from the 
social state, I do not intend thereby to undervalue the im¬ 
portance of the laws. Indeed, civil society necessarily 
supposes the presence of law, or order ; for law or order, is 
as essential to the existence and well-being of the civil or 
political, as to the physical world. Neither the one, nor 
the other, could be upheld or sustained without the pres¬ 
ence of this vital and conservative principle. 

The universe, and all that relates thereto, is presided 
over by law. When we speak of the works of creation— 
or rather, of the law or power which that creation is con¬ 
strained to obey, we denominate it the law of nature. 
When we speak of the cause of that power, we call it the 
law of God. In the lower grades of the animal kingdom, 
each of the different order of beings pursue a prescribed 
course—ever impelled by the instinctive necessities of their 
natures, to secure the preservation of their existence ; and 
ever governed by an imperative law. Within the limits 
of this narrow range of action, no advance, or improvement, 
in their condition takes place. The offspring is not bene- 
fitted by the experience of the parent; but each creature 
possesses within itself the power or faculty of accomplish¬ 
ing a given purpose—of satisfying animal wantj—and 
there the capacity terminates. Not so, however, with man. 
By reason of his superior intellectual endowments, he per¬ 
ceives the advantage—nay, the necessity—of holding in¬ 
tercourse and communion with his fellow man. As lie 
contemplates the great variety of things which surround 
him, he perceives that they are susceptible of ministering 
to his welfare, and capable of improving his natural condi¬ 
tion. But he soon discovers that, his own unassisted ener- 

* See De Goguet —Vol. I. Article 2. 



12 


gies are inadequate to the accomplishment of his desires 
and purposes, and therefore, he seeks the aid of another. 
At this point, mutual assistance, and a mutual interchange 
of things or commodities begin. Here we discover the 
germ of the social compact. As this germ expands, the 
principles of right and wrong—of justice, and injustice, are 
partially developed. To promote the one, and restrain the 
other, is the object and province of social relationship. 

Man is not only admonished by his physical wants, and 
the disparity which exists in the natural powers and facul¬ 
ties of individuals, but—as I have already intimated—by 
his affections, and the moral attributes of his nature, that 
he was designed for a state of society. But, he no sooner 
enters into society than he discovers the necessity of some 
civil restraint. Hence the universal introduction of gov¬ 
ernments, of some kind or other, into the social state. 

I do not mean to say that, the restraint which govern¬ 
ment imposes, is necessarily hostile to man’s natural rights. 
There is no necessary war between government and liberty. 
The former, if just and legitimate, is the shield and pro¬ 
tector of the latter. No human law can be valid or binding 
which is in dissention with man’s natural rights—or, that 
is not in accordance with the law of nature. “ This law 
of nature”—says Justice Blackstone—“ being co-eval with 
mankind, and dictated by God himself is, of course, supe¬ 
rior to any other. It is binding over all the Globe, in all 
countries, and at all times—no human laws are of any 
validity if contrary to this—and such of them as are valid, 
derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or 
immediately from this original.” 

A just government will not invade the natural rights of 
man, by imposing improper or unnecesary restraints upon 
his actions. If I may be allowed the expression, it merely 
abridges his right to do wrong , or, more properly, it con¬ 
strains him to obey, and not to transgress the law of na¬ 
ture. The laws of a just government, therefore, will con¬ 
form to the law of nature, and respond to the true and 


13 


moral emotions of the human heart and mind, and protect 
• man in the enjoyment of his natural rights. Indeed, it 
will be admitted by all, as a self-evident proposition, that 
the proper object and duty of civil government, is to estab¬ 
lish and preserve equal rights and equal justice among men. 
Notwithstanding all readily yield a verbal assent to the 
truth of this proposition, yet when they come to discuss, in 
detail, the great questions growing out of it—the natural, 
personal, and political rights of mankind—conflicting facts 
and warring opinions are introduced, and the great truth 
which they had admitted is lost sight of, or abandoned. 
The good of the many is sacrificed to the benefit of the 
few, and right and justice are supplanted by power and pri¬ 
vilege. Now, the great desideratum is, what are the prin¬ 
ciples on which that government should be founded, which 
is best calculated to achieve the object named in the self- 
evident proposition to which all have assented ? 

Before entering upon the discussion of this topic, it will 
be necessary to treat of the natural rights of man , constitu¬ 
ting, as they do, the true basis of all political science and 
human legislation. What are those rights? I answer, 
man’s right to life , to liberty , and to happiness. These are 
primary and fundamental rights. The first is the gift of his 
Creator; and it would argue a want of benevolence, as 
well as of justice, on the part of the Creator, to bestow the 
former and withold the latter. Life without liberty, would 
be a curse, rather than k blessing. Liberty is one of the 
incidents of man’s very nature, and he has just as much 
right to it as he has to any of his mental faculties ; or to the 
use of his limbs. In the nature of things he never should 
have been without it. It ever should have been as abso¬ 
lutely his as the ordinary use of his organs ; or his right to 
walk erect. And yet, “ by the violent accident of vicious 
government,” he has been deprived of this essential pro¬ 
perty of life—this peerless boon of heaven—for ages and 
ages. Man’s right to happiness is also to be inferred from 
the character and attributes of the Creator, as well as from 



14 


his own organization. In every part of creation we behold 
the evidences and manifestations of infinite benificence. 
Man’s very wants are a source of pleasure to him—the 
Creator having provided for their gratification; and the 
very fact that the exercise of man’s faculties is necessary 
to the gratification of his desires, is but another evidence 
of the wisdom and benevolence of the common parent. 
Life, then, having been bestowed by the “ giver of every 
good and perfect gift” for the purpose of happiness, it follows 
that, it is just as much man’s right to be free and happy, as 
it his right to exist. Society, therefore, has no more right to 
deprive a man of his liberty, or happiness, than it has to de¬ 
prive him of his life—except for the infraction of a righteous 
law. 

Assuming then—what none will dispute—that all men 
have certain rights appertaining to them as human beings — 
not as political grants, nor privileges, nor gifts ; but as na¬ 
tural, inherent, indefeasible rights—springing from the very 
constitution of the nature of man ; derived through the laws 
of his being; the gift of his Creator; higher and holier than 
human constitutions, or human laws, it follows that the civil 
power which shall interfere with, or regulate these rights, 
should emanate from all who were instrumental in creating 
that power, and upon whom it shall operate. All having 
an equal and inherent right to participate in originating the 
government, so all have an equal and inherent right to its 
Benefits and protection. The first proposition being general, 
the second must be general also. They must be co-extensive 
—co-equal. 

Nor can this right—nor any other of man’s rights—be 
affected by inequality of condition. The strong and the 
weak, the rich and the poor, possess them alike. As the 
casualties of life depress, or elevate all, so are the rights, 
which are incident to our nature, the common inheri¬ 
tance of all and each. Supremacy of condition, therefore, 
does not imply a supremacy of rights. The natural equality 
of man is essentially the same throughout the world, wher- 


15 


ever the race exists. They are all endowed with like ap¬ 
petites and desires—-with like susceptibilities of pain and 
pleasure—with conscience and volition—children of a com¬ 
mon origin, and a common destiny. 

The great truth of the unity, or natural equality of man, is 
fully recognized and affirmed in the account given of his 
creation. “ And God said let us make man in our own image. 
In the image of God created he him ; male and female created 
he them.” In this history of man’s divine origin, we per¬ 
ceive no distinction, except the distinction of sex ; no other 
is intimated or implied ; but on the contrary, it is expressly 
declared in the scriptures that “ God is no respecter of per¬ 
sons and that “ all are equal in his sight.” 

“It is evident in scripture”—says the pious, profound 
and erudite Bellarmine —“ that God hath ordained pow¬ 
ers, but God hath given them to no particular person, be¬ 
cause, by nature all men are equal; therefore he hath given 
power to the people or multitude.” And, I will add, that 
God has not only declared the great and significant truth of 
man’s natural equality, in his revealed word, but has written 
it upon the heart of man, and stamped it upon every charac¬ 
teristic and lineament of his being. 

“ God having given the government of the world to no one 
man”—says the immortal Sydney— “ nor declared how it 
should be divided, left it to the will of man.” And, “we 
may safely conclude,”—he adds,—“ that having given to all 
men, in some degree, a capacity of judging what is good for 
themselves, he hath granted to all, likewise, a liberty of in¬ 
venting such forms as please them best, without favoring 
one more than another. # * * # “ It is hard to imag¬ 

ine, that God who hath left all things to our choice, that are 
not evil in themselves, should tie us up in this ; and 
utterly incredible that he should impose upon us a necessity 
of following his will without declaring it to us.” 

Since, then, all men are created equal; since nature has 
set no difference between her children; since all have 
the same right to her benefactions; since all possess 



16 


the same senses, the same organs; since, in her original 
design, she created neither master nor slave, patrician nor 
plebian, wealthy nor poor, how can political laws—which 
are and absurdity and a curse if they are not the develope- 
ment of natural laws—but establish a glaring and tyrannic 
difference between the members of a community ? How 
can laws, which in order to produce good, should be con¬ 
sonant with reason, insult its majesty without begetting 
evil ? The dignity of human reason and of human rights 
cannot be violated without some re-action on the agents 
of the violation. “ Those rights,” says Sir William Black- 
stone, “ which God and nature have established, need not 
the aid of human laws to be more effectually insisted in 
every man than they are; neither do they receive any 
additional strength when declared by the municipal law 
to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature 
has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner 
shall commit some, act that amounts to a forfeiture. 

“The case is the same as to crimes and misdemeanors 
that are forbidden by the superior laws, and therefore styled 
mala in se , such as murder, theft, and perjury, which con¬ 
tract no additional turpitude from being declared unlawful 
by the inferior legislature ; for that legislature in all these 
cases acts only in subordination to the Great Lawgiver; tran¬ 
scribing and publishing his precepts. So that, upon the 
whole, the declaratory part of the municipal law has no 
force or operation at all with regard to actions that are na¬ 
turally or intrinsically right or wrong.” 

The soundness of these views will scarcely be questioned. 
They set forth, with peculiar power and emphasis, the im¬ 
portant truth that the municipal law is merely declaratory 
as respects all natural rights; that it neither creates nor 
confers, but enjoins and enforces them. Whenever the 
law therefore forbids what nature allows, or directs what 
nature forbids, it trenches on the natural rights of man, and 
wrongfully interferes with human liberty. Nor can it 
confer rights or privileges, which nature hath not ordained, 


17 


without robbing others of that which it confers. All rights, 
therefore, established by-law*, that are not equal, are arbi¬ 
trary, unjust, and unfounded in nature. It follows, then, 
that laws to be just, must be equal and consonant with na¬ 
ture. Nor can there be a departure from this principle, 
without incurring the danger—nay, ensuring the conse¬ 
quences of legal tyranny. 

Shall I be told that man surrenders his natural rights, 
on entering into society ? I know that this is a common 
opinion; but I trust that I shall be able to satisfy you—in 
very few words—that it is as fallacious and unfounded, as 
it is common. Admit that man forfeits even one natural 
right by becoming a member of the social compact, and 
all the rights which he received at the hand of the Creator 
may be absorbed by government, and government may 
assume the functions which pertain exclusively to an over¬ 
ruling Providence, and affect to become the sole arbiter 
and dispenser of good and evil, and the laws of man claim 
to be paramount to the laws of God. Only admit the doc¬ 
trine that one natural right must necessarily be surrendered 
up to government, in order to protect another, and you open 
the door to fraud and force, and government, instead of 
being the guardian of the natural rights of man, as designed, 
becomes their adversary and destroyer. 

Tyranny, alone, asserts that there is a necessary war be¬ 
tween society and the individual. The social state being 
necessary to the developfment and exercise of man’s in¬ 
tellectual and social nature—as all admit—would it not be 
monstrous to affirm that, the benefits appertaining to that 
state cannot be realized by man, without forfeiting those 
rights which God and nature vouchsafed to him? No, 
my friends, the social state emanating from man’s social 
and proper nature, and designed to establish and promote 
the social, and to restrain the abuses and excesses of the 
selfish feeling, must not wrong, nor outrage man’s nature 
by prohibiting the enjoyment and proper exercise of his 
natural rights and faculties. Crime, alone, can work a 


18 


forfeiture of man’s natural rights ; and society in punishing 
crime and injustice, but exerts the right of self-defence— 
which is necessary to its existence and well-being. With¬ 
out the exercise of this right, the organization of society 
could not be upheld, nor the objects of the social compact 
realized. It is only when men invade the rights of each 
other, that society can lawfully interpose its authority, and 
restrain, or punish. 

When men come together for the purpose of establishing 
social relations, and civil government, what is the stipula¬ 
tion and mutual understanding between all the members ? 
Not to invade the rights of each other, most undoubtedly :— 
whilst the government, on its part, agrees to protect each 
individual in the possession and enjoyment of his rights. 
Such are the proper and necessary obligations of both; 
and the very instant that either take a step beyond this, 
an assumption of power, and an infringement of the com¬ 
pact is the certain and inevitable consequence. Gov¬ 
ernment, therefore, has no more authority to invade the 
rights of individuals—in their legitimate exercise—than in¬ 
dividuals have to invade the legitimate authority of gov¬ 
ernment. It is the duty of the government, as the organ 
and agent of society, to protect the individual in the ex¬ 
ercise and enjoyment of his natural rights. So, also, is it 
the duty of the governed to protect and defend the gov¬ 
ernment in the discharge of its appropriate and legitimate 
functions. In a certain sense, the rights, interests, and du¬ 
ties of government and governed, are reciprocal. There 
is this important distinction, however—governments, pro¬ 
perly speaking, have, of themselves, no rights; “they are 
altogether duties.” Their powers are derivative—not in¬ 
herent. 

But, as natural and conventional rights run into each 
other—or, rather, as the latter grow out of the former—it is 
necessary that we distinguish properly between them. 
Natural rights, then, in contradistinction to social rights, 
are of that kind which belong to man by virtue of his exis- 


19 


tence; such as the rights of conscience, and of the intellect 

-in a word, all those rights that are incident to his natural 

faculties, whether of mind or body. Conventional rights, 
on the other hand, are such as spring from the social com¬ 
pact, and belong to man by reason of his being a member 
of such compact. As I have already intimated, every civil 
or conventional right is founded in some natural right 
which was possessed by the individual prior to his con¬ 
nection with the social state; but which, for default of 
power, is rendered inefficient. Such as relate to security 
and protection are of this kind. This definition, though brief, 
I conceive to be clear and valid. It will not be difficult, 
therefore, to distinguish, hereafter, between those natural 
rights, which man, on entering into society retains—whol¬ 
ly, exclusively, and absolutely—from those which undergo 
certain modifications by being merged in the social state. 
The first, are of that class, evidently, where the power to 
execute them is available and perfect; while those that are 
merged, though perfect in the individual, are defective for 
want of power to execute them ; and for this cause—for 
this want of power—it is, that he transfers them to society, 
in order to avail himself of its superior power. Let it be 
observed, however, that the natural rights retained—such 
as where the individual has the power competent to their 
full and effective exercise—are not to be molested by this 
superior social power. It is only where the power of the 
individual is defective, that the combined power of society 
is to be invoked, or called into requisition. 

Allow me here to remark, that in asserting the natural 
equality of man, I do not intend to be understood that I 
consider all men equal in degree , but in kind. An equality 
of rights, by no means implies an equality of powers. I am 
aware, of course, of the natural disparity which exists in the 
conditions, powers, and capacities of men. Nor was it ever 
intended by nature that there should be, in these respects, 
a perfect equality among men—the theories of Condorcet, 
Godwin, and others of the same school, to the contrary 


20 


notwithstanding. Observation and experience alike teach 
us, that some men have more strength, more talent, and 
other superior endowments, than others. Any system 
legislation, therefore, that should attempt to reduce all men 
to a level—the strong to the weak, or the wise to the fool¬ 
ish—would be just as much a violation of the laws of na¬ 
ture, as it would be to attempt to reduce the tall man to 
the stature of the short one. Nature having bestowed une¬ 
qual powers and capacities upon men, they are entitled to 
the benefit of nature’s endowments, and have a perfect 
right to all the advantages which result from those supe¬ 
rior gifts. If one man possesses more strength, more in¬ 
tellect, or more industry than another, let him enjoy the 
benefit ofthose advantages. The idea, therefore, of a per¬ 
fect equalit} 7 " of wealth, or of an equal distribution of pro¬ 
perty, is absurd, impracticable, and unnatural. So, on the 
other Iiand, inequality produced by unequal, or partial leg¬ 
islation, is not only an unnecessary violation of the laws of 
nature, but highly unjust and prejudicial to the public wel¬ 
fare. Nature having bestowed upon men equal rights, it 
is proper that those rights should remain equal—so far, at 
least, as they depend upon legislative enactments. 

All laws, which produce an artificial inequality in rights, 
and powers, such as the laws of primogeniture, entail, 
limitations of real property, private monopolies, and 
exclusive privileges, are repugnant to the principles of 
equal justice—in violation of the laws of nature, and inva¬ 
riably productive of unnecessary and mischevious distinc¬ 
tions in society. One great object of government, evident¬ 
ly should be, to preserve as perfect an equality of rights and 
property as possible, consistently with the natural inequal¬ 
ity of power and capacity allotted to individuals. 

“Above all things,” says Lord Bacon, “good policy 
should be used, that the moneys and treasures of a state 
be not gathered into few hands ; otherwise a state may 
have a large stock, and yet starve.” The present condi¬ 
tion of England, Ireland, and Scotland, is a striking exem- 


21 


plification of this truth. Whilst their nobility and privileged 
classes are gorged to satiety, and revelling in all the excesses 
of luxurious idleness, the industrious and down-trodden 
masses are writhing under the immediate wants of our 
nature. Aye, whilst their Apiciuses and Luculluses lavish 
away the proceeds of legalized extortions, in one night’s en¬ 
tertainment, the people are supplicating for bread—and per¬ 
ishing while supplicating. What an instructive, but terri¬ 
ble commentary upon the practical effects of unequal and 
partial legislation! Tell me not of the unfruitfulness of 
the season, and the consequent deficiency of the crops. 
That is not the essential cause of the evil. It is not in this 
instance, at least, adequate to the effect. When social 
evils are clearly traceable to the mal-administration of 
human governments, it is not only improper, but impious , to 
impute them to the dispensations of Divine Providence. 
Let governments faithfully execute their trusts, and hon¬ 
estly perform their duties, before they presume to charge 
high Heaven with the social and political miseries of 
man. * 

When, let me ask, when were the people of Ireland ex¬ 
empt from political degradation, and consequent wretched¬ 
ness and want ? When was there a season so fruitful or 
so propitious, that the inhabitants of that mis-governed and 
ill-fated country did not sicken and languish for the indis¬ 
pensable comforts and necessaries of life ? All seasons, 
alas ! have been seasons of distress to Ireland, since the 
fatal season of her political captivity; and returning sea¬ 
sons will ever bring with them an aggravation of recurring 
calamities—until it shall please God, in his own good time, 
to usher in the dawn of that auspicious season , which shall 
proclaim td Ireland her deliverance from British rule and 
British bondage. 

But it is not for me, nor such as me, to attempt a por¬ 
traiture of Ireland’s wrongs. No, it requires the burning 
eloquence and bitter enthusiasm of her own gifted and ar¬ 
dent sons to do justice to the history of the wrongs of Ire¬ 
land—dowered with endless woes, by the stern t}Tanny of 


22 


the government—the profligacy of the nobility—the inso¬ 
lence of the soldiery, and the exactions of the established 
Church. 

My countrymen—Americans—need I dwell upon the 
melancholy fate of Ireland—of liberty-loving and liberty¬ 
deserving Ireland—with a view to excite your sympathies, 
or to quicken your benevolence ? or need I remind you of 
the services performed by her gallant sons, in our country’s 
cause, during the trying scenes of the Revolution, in order 
to awaken your gratitude, or to invigorate }mur exertions for 
her relief? No ! no—it is enough to say, that in the hour 
of our extremity, when the hand of the oppressor—the 
same oppressor—was upon our throats, and his heel stam¬ 
ped into our hearts, Ireland freely gave of her blood —to save 
us from subjugation; and shall we refuse, in the hour of 
her extremity, to give unto her freely of our bread —to save 
her from starvation? Heaven forbid—Justice forbid— 
Gratitude forbid—Humanity, from the inmost depths of her 
universal being, cries out forbid ! forbid !! As Americans, 
what more need we require—what more can we require— 
to cause us to put forth all our energies to rescue Ireland 
from starvation and death, than to know her present wants , 
and to remember her past services and sacrifices ? Par¬ 
don this digression, my friends. It is ever difficult, we all 
know, to restrain the tongue from giving utterance to the 
feelings which swell and agitate the heart.—I now return 
to the subject. 

What sure test then have we of the justice of laws ? I 
answer, their impartiality and equalhy. Consult history, 
and every part will go to prove that, the equality, or ine¬ 
quality of the laws, has been the source of all good, and of 
all evil. I defy you to point out one people, that ever saw 
families, or castes, privileged by either birth or wealth, rise 
among them without working grievous wrong to the body 
politic. Wherever the equality of legislation is disregarded, 
or regarded only to be sported with, there will justice be 
dealt out with different measures and weights—virtue and 
talent will be judged by different standards. 


23 


The equality of the laws is two-fold; it measurably es¬ 
tablishes equality in the fortunes and in the dignity of the 
"citizens. In proportion as the laws provide for a greater 
equality, in that exact proportion do they become endeared 
to the members of a state. They are calculated to temper 
the passions, to assist reason, and consequently, to prevent 
iniquity. Unfortunately, legislators have almost ever lost 
sight of this great radical truth, that the object of all polity 
is to bind all the members of the families which constitute 
society, into one common interest; so that instead of reci¬ 
procally injuring themselves, they should mutually assist 
each other in their daily and social wants. If such be—and 
it cannot be denied—the end of all society, I infer that the 
laws which direct it must be strictly just. For man, wheth¬ 
er oppressing, or oppressed, by virtue and in the name of the 
law, would in this state of society, be exposed to the same 
wrongs which he experienced in the state of nature. It is 
plainly the duty of government, therefore, to enact laws that 
shall be general in their scope and application, and in 
their operation equal and impartial to all. And the very 
instant that government departs from this principle, and 
dispenses favours to some , it does so by an usurpation of the 
rights of all . It cannot confer privileges on one man, with¬ 
out derogating from the rights of others. Class legislation, 
therefore, must ever be regarded as a great and lamentable 
evil; for whenever a particular class gain an ascendency 
in the halls of legislation, the particular interests of that class 
are sure to be consulted rather than the public good. All 
classes of industry being equally important to the general 
welfare, and equally entitled to protection, it follows, that 
government cannot rightfully and legitimately favour the 
interests of any particular class, nor interfere with indivi¬ 
dual pursuits. “Whenever government assumes the pow¬ 
er of discriminating between the different classes of the 
community,” says the lamented Leggett, “it becomes in 
effect the arbiter of their prosperity, and may, at pleasure, 
elevate one class and depress another, and exercises a 


24 


power not contemplated by any intelligent people in dele¬ 
gating their sovereignty to their rulers.” 

While the fundamental principle of government, then, 
is the protection of person and property, its,legitimate func¬ 
tions are restricted to the enacting and enforcing of general 
laws—uniform and universal in their operation. 

Thus far, I have confined my remarks, chiefly, to the 
importance of civil government—to its origin—to the object 
of its creation, and to the principles on which it should be 
founded and administered. In discussing these several 
topics, I have taken the ground that the social state was 
necessary to the more full and perfect developement of 
man’s better nature—his affections, his moral emotions, and 
his intellectual capacities: That all government originated 
out of the physical, social, moral, and intellectual w^ants 
of man : That Government should be founded on the na¬ 
tural and inalienable rights of man : That rightful and legiti¬ 
mate government being instituted by all, and for and in be¬ 
half of all, should afford equal advantages and equal pro¬ 
tection to all: That the law~ is merely declaratory, as res¬ 
pects natural rights: That man does not denude or divest 
himself of his natural rights, by becoming a member of 
society, but only adopts another mode for their more per¬ 
fect security and exercise : That it is the duty of govern¬ 
ment to pass general laws, which shall be uniform and 
universal in their operation: That all partial legislation 
in behalf of certain classes or interests, is contrary to the 
design and spirit of the social compact, and subversive of 
the principles upon which all government should be foun¬ 
ded. Such are mv positions; and I must regard them as 
being founded in truth, until shown to be otherwise. 

I would now ask your attention to the question of the 
right of man to self-government; and this, after all, is the 
vital and controlling question ; for if this right be abne¬ 
gated, all other political rights are niigata^, unavailable, 
and worthless. What—I think I hear some of you exclaim 
—what, can the right of man to self-government be called 


25 


in question in the year of our Lord 1847, and of American 
Independence 71; and that, too, in free America, and by an 
''American citizen ? Why, my friends, strange as it may 
seem to most of you, this very doctrine is denied and repu¬ 
diated by thousands, even in this land of liberty—this pe¬ 
culiar homestead of freedom. 

When I speak of the right of man to self-government, I 
have reference, of course, to a majority of the adult male 
population—such as are capable of entering into a con¬ 
tract, and who, under our s} T stem, are recognized as free¬ 
men and citizens ; and according to the theory of our free 
institutions, are entitled to exercise the elective franchise. 
I do not, therefore, include women nor children. The politi¬ 
cal rights of the ladies I will leave to John Neale & Co ;* 
and the rights of children, to their parents and guardians, 
and to such grown up children , as may be childish enough 
to interpose such an objection to the general principle 
which has just been laid down. 

If it be true, then, as I have endeavored to show, that all 
men are equal in respect to their natural rights ; that they 
enter society on common ground ; that government is the 
common agent of all, instituted by all, and for the common 
benefit of all, it would seem necessarily to follow that the 
question was settled, so far as the right of man to self gov¬ 
ernment is concerned. But, as some are hard to believe 
in this doctrine, I will dwell upon it for a few moments 
longer. We have already seen that all men are created 
free and equal. Liberty and equality, then, being the gift 
of God, it follows that liberty and equality are incidents of 
man’s very nature and being. This I hold to be as true as 
that God is the creator of man. This liberty must continue, 
then, until it be forfeited, or resigned. The forfeiture can¬ 
not be well predicated of a multitude who have not formed 
themselves into society ; for it is evident that prior to that 
act they were all equal with regard to their rights. “ Where 
there is no society, one man is not bound by the acts of 

* I mean no disrespect to Mr. Neale. I hold him in the highest esteem. 


26 


another.”* All cannot be presumed to join in the same act, 
for the reason that they join in none. In that state, all are 
equals ; and equals can have no right, or authority, over 
each other. And with regard to resignation, I would ask, 
how men can resign their liberty, unless they first posses¬ 
sed it ? An act of resignation implies an assent on the 
part of those who resign to be governed by the person to 
whom the resignation was made. By that act they con¬ 
stitute him their governor. It is evident, therefore, that 
unless the right of government was originally in those who 
resigned, or conveyed it, the party to whom it was thus re¬ 
signed or conveyed could have no right to it. The very 
fact of a people resigning their liberties, proves that the 
sovereignty resided originally in them ; and wherever the 
sovereignty is, there must the right to freedom be. In 
despotic governments, the sovereignty, or freedom, resides 
in one individual. In free governments, it resides in the 
people. By way of illustration—let us take the case of a 
number of individuals who should determine to abandon 
their country and its institutions, and to settle upon some 
uninhabited island: who can doubt but that, one of their 
very first acts would be to establish social relationship 
among themselves, and to institute a form of civil govern¬ 
ment? And will any question their right to do so? I think 
not. Or will any question their right to establish just such 
a system as a majority of them might determine upon? 
Certainly not. No man will affirm the contrary. When 
a number of Phinicians had found a port on the coast of 
Africa—in the exercise of that freedom which they had 
brought with them, and which they had received at the 
hand of God—they proceeded to organize themselves in 
such manner, and to establish such a system of civil polity 
as they deemed proper. And where was the authority to 
forbid it? When a company of Sabines, Tuscans, and La¬ 
tins, assembled upon the banks of the Tiber, and chose to 
form a government for themselves, rather than to live under 


* See Sydney on Government 


I 


27 


adjacent governments already established, by what author¬ 
ity could their right to do so be denied? But, to bring the 
matter nigher home. Who will assert that the Pilgrim Fa¬ 
thers, when they landed on Plymouth Rock, had not a per¬ 
fect right to establish a form of government in such manner, 
and upon such principles as they deemed proper ? Or, to 
bring the subject still nigher. What American will say that 
our Revolutionary sires were not justifiable in severing the 
ties which bound them to the British throne, and in estab¬ 
lishing this free and glorious republic—this bright and 
sparkling gem of a government? If it be admitted, then, as 
it will, that our fathers had a right to absolve themselves 
from a government which they deemed oppressive, and to 
establish such an one as they considered better adapted to 
their happiness and welfare, have not we, I would ask, just 
as valid a right to change or abolish the system which they 
bequeathed us, whenever a majority of the nation or peo¬ 
ple shall deem it expedient or necessary ? Why not ? One 
generation being equal in rights to another, it must, there¬ 
fore, be as free to act for itself as the one which preceded it. 
Cartwright, on the English Constitution, well remarks : 
“ A people may assemble, and will what they call a Consti¬ 
tution ; but yet no such act will morally bind even those who 
shall attain adult age next day, unless founded on the eter¬ 
nal principles of truth and the inherent rights of man. These 
principles are therefore the vital essence of a Constitution.” 
Again — A people of one generation may, at any one time, 
through ignorance, folly, or baseness, consent to relinquish 
their liberty; but the act being contrary to the law of 
nature, by the parties putting themselves out of a capa¬ 
city to perform all the duties of morality, cannot bind; 
wherefore, whenever they shall have the requisite know¬ 
ledge, sense, and virtue to resume their freedom, it is their 
right to do so.” 

“ Each government,” says Mr. Jefferson, “ is as indepen¬ 
dent of the one preceding it, as that was of all which had 
gone before. It has, like them, a right to choose for itself 


28 


the form of government it believes the most promotive of its 
own happiness.” Again — “This corporeal globe, and 
every thing upon it, belongs to its present corporeal inhabi¬ 
tants, during their generation. They alone have a right to 
declare what is the concern of themselves, and to declare 
the law of that direction ; and this declaration can only be 
made by them. The majority, then, has a right to depute 
representatives to a convention, to make the Constitution 
what they think will be best for themselves.” 

Livy mentions an interesting historical fact, which has a 
bearing—remote, I admit—upon the question under con¬ 
sideration. It is related by that historian, that the Priver- 
nates had been repeatedly subdued by the Romans, and as 
often rebelled. Plautius, the Roman consul, at length de¬ 
feated their armies and captured their city. In their extre¬ 
mity they sent ambassadors to Rome to sue for peace, when 
a Senator asked one -of them “ what punishment they de¬ 
served ? ” One of the ambassadors answered, “ The same 
which they deserve who think themselves worthy of liber¬ 
ty.” The consul then demanded, “What kind of peace 
might be expected from them if the punishment should be 
remitted?” The ambassador replied, “If the terms you 
give be good, the peace will be observed by us faithfully 
and perpetually; if bad, it will soon be broken.” This bold 
and manly reply was approved by the Roman Senate, as 
worthy of a man and a freeman ; and acknowledging that 
no man, nor nation, should remain under improper restraint, 
longer than compelled by force, said, “ they were only fit to 
be Romans who thought nothing valuable but liberty.” 
Whereupon the request of the Privernates was granted, and 
they were made citizens of Rome. By this act the Roman 
Senate not only acknowledged the right of man to self-gov¬ 
ernment, but to rebellion. 

Man, then, having a right to self-government—a perfect 
and undoubted right to establish government in such man¬ 
ner, and upon such principles as a majority may deem pro¬ 
per— it follows, necessarily, that the right of such majority 


» 


29 


to change, modify, or abolish government, must be equally 
valid and perfect. They cannot possess the one, and not the 
other—the former, and not the latter. The sovereignty, 
then, residing in a majority of the people, or nation, such 
majority must, of necessity, have a perfect and undeniable 
right to use or direct their sovereignty in such manner, and 
to such purposes, as they may elect. If they determine, 
therefore, to change or abolish their form of government, 
the right to do so abides in them, and there is no power on 
earth that can rightfully restrain or interdict its exercise. 

In this position I am fully sustained, not only by the sages 
of America, and the fathers of the republic, but also by the 
most eminent statesmen and philosophers of which Eng¬ 
land can boast, viz: Milton, Harrington, Sydney, Locke, 
Pailey, Hume, Burke, Priestly, and, if I mistake not, Lord 
Somers. I will, with your permission, read a few brief 
extracts from the writings of some of those illustrious men. 

Mr. Pailey, Archdeacon of Carlisle, in his work, entitled 
“ The Principles of Political and Moral Philosophy,” holds 
this language — “No usage, law, or authority whatever, is 
so binding, that it need or ought to be continued when it 
may be changed with advantage to the community. The 
family of the prince—the order of succession—the prerog¬ 
ative of the crown—the form and parts of the legislature, 
together with the respective powers, office, duration, and 
mutual dependency of the several parts, are all only so 
many laws, mutable like other laws, whenever expediency 
requires, either by the ordinary act of the legislature, or, if 
the occasion deserve it, by the interposition of the people .” 

Mr. Locke, in his reply to Sir Robert Filmer’s “ Pa- 
triarcha,” remarks, “It is true, that whatever engagements 
or promises any one has made for himself, he is under the 
obligation of them, but cannot, by any compact whatever, 
bind his children or posterity; for his son, when a man, 
being altogether as free as the father, any act of the father 
can no more give away the liberty of the son , than it can of any 
body else .” 


4 


30 


I will now call your attention to two brief extracts, one 
from Hume, and the other from Burke, neither of whom 
could ever be considered as friends of very liberal political 
principles. Mr. Hume, speaking of Magna Charta, in his 
History of England, says, “It must be confessed, that the 
former articles of the great Charter contain such mitiga¬ 
tions and explanations of the feudal law as are reasonable 
and equitable ; and that the latter involve all the chief out¬ 
lines of a legal government, and provide for the equal dis¬ 
tribution of justice and free enjoyment of property; the 
great object for which political society was founded for 
man, which the people have a perpetual and inalienable right, to 
recall , and which no time , nor precedent , nor statute , nor positive 
institution , ought to deter them from keeping ever uppermost in 
their thoughts and attention .” 

Mr. Burke is still more explicit, if possible, on this sub¬ 
ject. In speaking of the Colonies, he holds the following 
strong and unequivocal language, — “If there be one fact 
in the world perfectly clear, it is this — that the disposition 
of the people of America is wholly averse to any other than 
a free government, and this is indication enough to any 
honest statesmen, how he ought to adapt whatever power 
he finds in his hands to their case. If any ask me what a 
free government is, I answer, that it is what the people think 
so ; and that they , and not 7, are the natural , lawful^ and com¬ 
petent judges of this matter .” 

The right of the people, then, to institute, change, or abol¬ 
ish government, is fully, clearly, and energetically main¬ 
tained, by the profound and distinguished writers just cited. 
With your permission I will notice one other authority, 
which, I doubt not, will command your sincere and profound 
attention, for it is of Heavenly origin, and may be found in 
the answer or command of God to Samuel, when the Is¬ 
raelites desired the Prophet to make them a king: 

“And the Lord said unto Samuel,hearken unto the voice 
of the people in all that they say unto thee : for they have 
not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should 


31 


not reign over them.” “ Now, therefore, hearken unto their 
_voice : nevertheless, protest solemnly unto them, and shew 
them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.”* 

We here perceive that the right of a nation, or people, to 
choose or to change their form of government, is aright which 
has received the sanction and recognition of Jehovah him¬ 
self. Notwithstanding the foolish and wicked desire of the 
Israelites to have a king was displeasing to the prophet, 
hateful to God, and a rejection of his authority, yet he com¬ 
manded Samuel to “ hearken unto their voice, and make 
them a kins:.” 

That law of liberty, which God had vouchsafed to Is¬ 
rael, and to all mankind, he would not—could not abrogate. 
Hence the proverb — “ The voice of the people is the voice 
of God,” is not altogether unfounded in truth. Not only 
has the Creator, in his infinite wisdom, thought proper to 
commit to the creature his eternal interests, but also his 
temporal rights, as the proper depository of them. 

I will here rest the argument for the present, on this part 
of the subject, with the remark, that whenever the princi¬ 
ples and doctrines which have just been advanced shall be 
overthrown, and it shall be made manifest that the right of 
man to self-government—comprehending, as it necessarily 
does, his right to ordain and establish, and consequently, to 
alter or abolish government—is false and unfounded, then, 
I say, I shall be constrained to acknowledge that the cham¬ 
pions of freedom throughourthe world, and our own revolu¬ 
tionary sires, in particular—who advocated the dogma, and 
who have been hitherto regarded as the political saints and 
lights of the world—were but so many restless demagogues 
and political Jack O’Lanterns ; and that liberty, instead of 
being a blessing, and the gift of God, is but a phantasm and 
figment of the brain—an illusion and a mockery! But—to 
adopt the language employed by myself on another occa¬ 
sion—until this be accomplished, I will, with Heaven’s 


1 Samuel, c. viii. See the whole chapter. 


22 


blessing, cleave to the political faith of my fathers—to the 
cause of man, and of his enfranchisement—with all that 
enthusiasm of hope, and devotion of admiration, which 
quicken the pulse and ravish the heart of the youthful and 
adoring lover. Nay, while God grants me life and intellect, 
I will unite and concentrate all the energies of my nature 
in the defence and advocacy of that cause — combining and 
bringing to its aid, if need be, the austere devotion of the 
barefooted Carmelite, with the burning and resistless ardor 
of the zealous Crusader! 

I would, in the next place, beg leave to offer a few re¬ 
marks on the different systems of government which have 
obtained in the world. Their characters may be briefly 
stated thus : — Priestly authority, in the shape of theocra¬ 
cies—unlimited power, in the manifold forms of despotism 
— absolute monarchy, in the rights of kings—princely aris¬ 
tocracies, in the persons of a few self-constituted rulers. 
Such have been the different phases through which fore¬ 
gone societies have passed. Through all the varied pe¬ 
riods and forms, all power originated from the summit of 
society, and weighed on those below. The first form of 
government mentioned, was one of priestcraft and supersti¬ 
tion—or, if you please, of the sacerdotal form. The others 
were founded in power and conquest; and all arose over , 
and not out of the people. The Roman empire was exclu¬ 
sively founded on plunder. The wars of Europe, from 
Charlemagne to Louis XIV, and from Louis XIV, to the 
Holy Alliance, have, with the exception of the monopoly 
wars of England, mostly originated from the same mo¬ 
tives. 

Aristocracies are founded, generally, either in conquest 
or in legislative usurpation, and are ever at war with the 
principles of justice and the natural and equal rights of the 
people. “ In an aristocracy,” says Montesque, “ the su¬ 
preme power is lodged in the hands of a certain number of 
persons. These are invested both with the legislative and 
executive authority; and the rest of the people are, in re- 


33 


spect to them, the same as the subjects of a monarchy in 
regard to the sovereign.” 

Let us now briefly consider the democraticalform. There 
are, as you all know, two forms of democratical govern¬ 
ment. The simple form, where the people — if you will 
allow the mode of expression — are their own representa¬ 
tives, as was the case in the republics of Greece; and the 
representative form, where agents or trustees are delegated 
by the people to act for them, as in this country. Under 
this last system or form, every man or citizen must be re¬ 
garded as a proprietor in government; and the agent or rep¬ 
resentative is the mere servant of those who elect or ap¬ 
point him, and is therefore bound to act in reference to 
their interest and will; his powers never to exceed, but 
always to be subordinate to the will and authority of the 
represented. All power being originally inherent in, and 
immediately derived from the people, they are supreme; and 
consequently, there can be no exercise of sovereignty but 
by their suffrages — which is their own will. 

“ There necessarily exists in every government,” says 
Judge Wilson, in his remarks on the adoption of the Fede¬ 
ral Constitution, “ a power, from which there is no appeal; 
and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, abso¬ 
lute, and uncontrollable.” # # # “ The consequence is, the 
people may change the Constitution, whenever, and how¬ 
ever they please. This is a right of which no positive in¬ 
stitutions can ever deprive them. 

“ These important truths are far from being merely spec¬ 
ulative. We at this moment speak and deliberate under 
their benign influence. To the operation of these truths, 
we are to ascribe the scene, hitherto unparalleled, which 
America now exhibits to the world — a gentle, a peaceful, 
a voluntary, and a deliberate transition from one constitu¬ 
tion of government to another. In other parts of the world, 
the idea of revolutions in government is, by a mournful and 
an indissoluble association, connected with the idea of 
wars, and all the calamities attendant on wars. But hap- 


34 


py experience teaches us to view such revolutions in a very 
different light—to consider them only as progressive steps 
in improving the knowledge of government, and increasing 
the happiness of society and mankind.” 

“ Oft have I viewed with silent pleasure and admiration, 
the force and prevalence through the United States, that the 
supreme power resides in the people, and that they never 
part with it. It may be called the 'panacea in politics. There 
can be no disorder in the community, but may here receive 
a radical cure. If the error be in the legislature, it may be 
corrected by the Constitution ; if in the Constitution, it may 
be corrected by the people. There is a remedy, therefore, 
for every distemper in government, if the people are not 
wanting to themselves: from their power there is no ap¬ 
peal : to their error there is no superior principle of correc¬ 
tion.” 

That the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power, in 
this country, remains in the people, cannot be questioned. 
It was the doctrine of the Revolution—it is the doctrine of 
America. As the Constitution of a State, then, is superior 
to the legislature, and the people superior to the Constitu¬ 
tion, it follows that the people can, when they please, and 
how they please, change or annul the same ; and that, too, 
regardless of any provision it may contain : for we are not 
to suppose the agent superior to the principal, nor the crea¬ 
ture above the creator ; nor that the people will place their 
power beyond their own reach and control, and thereby de¬ 
nude themselves of their sovereignty ; nor that the people 
may not, when they choose, re-assume all the powers of 
government. None of these things, I say, are to be pre¬ 
sumed. In the language of that great man—that profound 
and enlightened statesman — from whose writings I have 
just read, “ the right of the people to change their constitu¬ 
tions, is a right of which no positive institutions can ever 
deprive them.” This is the doctrine—the very essence of 
political orthodoxy. Neither constitutional provisions, nor 
legislative enactments, can deprive the people from chang- 


35 


ing their form of government. And it would be strange 
enough were it otherwise ; for then, one generation—either 
by inserting a clause in a constitution, or by legislative en¬ 
actments— might bind all future generations, and prohibit 
the people from exercising their sovereignty through all 
coming time. If the power, from which there is no appeal, 
remains in the Constitution of a State, there must the sov¬ 
ereignty reside: if in the legislature, the sovereignty must 
reside in the legislature. But, in this country, thank Hea¬ 
ven, it resides in neither the one nor the other, but in the 
people—where God placed it. 

A government which has. the right of perpetuating itself, 
must, necessarily, have the right of altering itself; and 
therefore must be arbitrary in its nature, because it can 
make itself just what it pleases. Constitutional govern¬ 
ments make no such pretensions; and whenever a govern¬ 
ment sets up such a claim, it shows it has no constitution. 
When the people of this country speak of the organic law 
of a state, or nation, they invariably have reference to a 
constitution — that power which precedes government, and 
contains the elements of a government—the principles on 
which it shall be established — the manner in which it shall 
be organized—the powers wherewith it shall be clothed — 
in a word, we regard a constitution as a law to a govern¬ 
ment ; and to which all laws, to be valid, must conform. 

A Constitution, in the American sense, is the property of 
a state, or nation, and not of a legislature. The legislature 
we regard as its creature, and subject to its control. The 
American Constitutions are established on the authority of 
the people, and are intended as guards against legislative 
encroachments and usurpations. It is very evident, there¬ 
fore, that legislatures can have no right to interfere with 
the formation, nor alteration of a Constitution. 

According to the theory of a representative democracy, 
as I have already stated, a Constitution, sanctioned by the 
people—and it cannot be a Constitution, in view of this 
theory, unless so sanctioned — is the fundamental law of a 



36 


state, or nation, and necessarily precedes government, and 
defines the nature and powers of government when estab¬ 
lished. It follows, therefore, that in the absence of such 
fundamental law, a government—of the nature and char¬ 
acter just indicated—cannot be inferred, nor presumed to 
exist. Hence, whenever a case occurs, under our system, 
where the government, or legislature of a State, exercise 
powers not conferred by a Constitution—ordained and es¬ 
tablished by the people—nor in pursuance of powers dele¬ 
gated by a majority of the people — it does so without the 
sanction or warrant of fundamental law, and regardless of 
all rightful authority ; and all powers so exercised, by such 
government or legislative body, are assumed and usurped. 

In such a state of things, and under such circumstances, 
it is ever the just province and duty of a majority of the 
people, to throw themselves upon their natural and inher¬ 
ent rights, and, in the language of the Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence, to “ alter or abolish such government, and to in¬ 
stitute a new government; laying its foundation on such 
principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to 
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and hap¬ 
piness.” 

The great principle, then, my fellow-citizens, upon 
which our free institutions rest, is the unqualified and abso¬ 
lute sovereignty of the people; and constituting, as that 
principle does, the most positive and essential feature in the 
great charter of our liberties, so is it better calculated than 
any other to give elevation to our hopes, and dignity to our 
actions. So long as the people feel that the power to alter 
the form, or change the character of the government, abides 
in them, so long will they be impressed with that sense of 
security and of dignity, which must ever spring from the 
consciousness that they hold within their own hands a rem¬ 
edy for every political evil—a corrective for every govern¬ 
mental abuse and usurpation. 

This principle, then, must be upheld and maintained, at 
all hazards and at every sacrifice — maintained in all the 


37 


power and fulness—in all the breadth and depth of its 
utmost capacity and signification. It is not sufficient that 
it be acknowledged as a mere abstraction, or theory, 
or doctrine ; but as a practical, substantial, living reality— 
vital in every part: if I may so speak, the Word must be¬ 
come Flesh, and dwell among us. 

This doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, thank 
Heaven, is the paramount law of the land. It is a bulwark, 
against which the clashing theories of legislators must crum¬ 
ble to atoms. I maintain that Providence has endowed 
each individual with that degree of reason which is neces¬ 
sary to direct him in those matters which exclusively con¬ 
cern him. This is the great maxim which supports the 
social and political fabric of this country. It teaches 
that each has the faculty of self-government; that no mem¬ 
bers of society are entitled to benefits that are not fully and 
equally extended to all. Society itself, in order to keep 
within the broad principles of natural rights and natural 
equity, must abstain from violating the perfectibility of 
man—must look irpo the abuses which time, ignorance, or 
cupidity may have introduced, and admit that what seems 
measurably good to-day, may conceal lurking seeds of mis¬ 
chief. Hence, every thing should concur in the fullest de¬ 
velopment of the democratic element; the culture, moral 
and intellectual, of the people, more than even the laws 
themselves; and the laws much more than mere physical 
circumstances. 

If it be proper for legislators, at this advanced period of 
civilization, to curtail the right of reform, or shackle its pro¬ 
gress, then the nations of Europe have done wrong to shake 
off the yoke of the feudal power—wrong to laugh contempt 
on the dread thunders of the Vatican—wrong to have vin¬ 
dicated the rights of humanity, against the established pow¬ 
ers of despotism ; and we, ourselves, still more so, in hav¬ 
ing challenged tyrants, of every kind, in the arena of our Re¬ 
volution—hailed the Declaration of our Independence as an 


38 


advent of freedom, and lauded the doctrines of its author 
as the safeguards of our liberties. 

It is but a vain — a worse than vain—it is a mischiev- 
ious undertaking of legislators, to enter into a struggle with 
the more generous ideas and progressive evolutions of any 
society. They are its organs, not its antagonists; its 
agents, not its masters. Where there is a schism between 
the rights of the power which creates the agent, and the acts 
of the agent himself, there will discontent and danger inev¬ 
itably be found. If governments after governments have 
perished, the true cause may be traced in a departure from 
the organic law, or a brutal resistance to the progressive 
ideas of society. Many are the leading politicians, of both 
political parties, who have of late advanced the heresy, that 
our government will perish by the excess of its own radi¬ 
cal principle. I cannot stop to argue the point with such. 
I believe that governments generally perish through the 
excess of selfishness. Every government, unless imposed 
upon a people by foreign conquest, is, at the time of its 
creation, the seasonable and legitimate expression of socie¬ 
ty ; otherwise, it would be but a mockery of a government. 
If sustained for any length of time by public adhesion, it 
soon absorbs itself in the idea of its own merits and excel¬ 
lencies—losing sight of the ends for which it was created, 
and forgetting that it is but a revocable ministry, instituted 
for the benefit of all. It not unfrequently happens that it 
separates itself from the people, its creator, and the mass 
of society suffer from the schism. From these considera¬ 
tions it is evident, that free or popular governments must 
not—canrtot remain stationary. Their utility and well-being 
requires, that they should not only retrieve errors, and re¬ 
form abuses, but advance. They must obey the law of pro¬ 
gress, and keep pace with the improvements of society and 
the spirit of the age, or their usefulness—nay, their exis¬ 
tence is at an end. 

Our beloved country, I rejoice to say, has, in this respect, 
been neither remiss in her duties, recreant to her interests, 


39 


nor unmindful of her destiny. No, to her honor and praise 
be it spoken, the principles of popular revolution haVe not 
only found a safe repository in her free institutions, but re¬ 
ceived a propulsion at her hands, which no mortal agency 
may presume to baffle or impede. It is not in the nature of 
things, that these pure principles can be beaten back by 
the exertion of any earthly power. No, they are destined 
to the performance of a holy mission, whose tendency is to 
repudiate and nullify the fatal influences of those maxims and 
dogmas, which have so long swayed the destinies of the 
social and political world; and to proclaim and establish 
equal rights and equal justice — “Peace on earth and good 
will toward men.” To maintain the contrary—to attempt 
the suppression of these pure and popular principles — 
would be the extreme of folly and improvidence. Nay, it 
would be to commit treason against mankind, and to war 
against the things willed of God! It cannot, therefore, 
avail. As well might you attempt to fetter the pinion of 
time, or chain the passing hour, as roll back the current of 
human progress, or impede the onward movement of the 
principles of popular revolution: they will—they must — 
accomplish their destinies. “ There is a Divinty that 
shapes their endand its providential power—whilst it 
forbids them to recede— compels them to advance. And 
although there is, in the nature of human events, a sovereign 
and irrevocable necessity—paramount to all earthly pow¬ 
er, and which baffles and defies all the efforts of man to 
check or to limit its control—yet it is in accordance with the 
laws of man’s being, and the providence of God, that man 
should concur in all that relates to his preservation and wel¬ 
fare. Industry, watchfulness and care, is the very tenure 
of man’s existence. He must obtain his bread by the sweat 
of his face. He must work out his own salvation. God 
has so decreed. Notwithstanding, therefore, the uniform 
and permanent tendency of this revolutionary movement of 
the day, in behalf of the free or popular principle, yet the 
co-operation of man is necessary—not to the eventual triumph 


40 


of this principle, but that he may enjoy its benefits and its bless - 
ings. 

To our country has been reserved the proud privilege of 
unfolding and establishing the principles of popular freedom. 
If you- would rightly estimate the dignity and importance 
of this national position, regard, for a moment, the wide¬ 
spread and avalanche movement of the principle, which re¬ 
cognizes the natural equality of man, and the absolute sov¬ 
ereignty of the people. Already does it claim the attention, 
and challenge the judgment, of the wise and the good, of 
all lands and of all nations. The enlightened and philoso¬ 
phical statesman—of whatever creed or country—begins 
to regard the eventual triumph of this principle as inevita¬ 
ble—begins to believe, and to confess, as he calmly views 
the character and progress of events, that the happiness and 
welfare of the race demand the speedy installation of its 
power in every clime and country of the earth. Even Phi¬ 
losophy, herself, as she contemplates the accumulating in¬ 
telligence and power of the masses, hesitates, and recoils, 
as she denounces this ultimate result as Utopian . Indeed, 
her most worthy and gifted disciples begin to regard it as an 
established truth — an indefeasible fact: confess that it is no 
startling phenomenon in the political world, but ancient as 
society itself, and its tendency the most stable and uniform 
of any which illustrates the chronicles of the human race. 
And herein they are correct. The spirit of popular liberty 
is not—as some superficial minds have contended — the 
exclusive growth of this country, and originally brought 
forth in the travails of the American Revolution. The prin¬ 
ciples which recognize the natural and political equality of 
man, were understood, and partially carried out, by our 
Saxon ancestors. De Lolme, in treating of the early re¬ 
cognition of general social rights, in his great work on the 
Constitution of England, holds the following language : — 
“ The different orders of the feudal government, as estab¬ 
lished in England, being connected by tenures exactly sim¬ 
ilar, the same j maxims which were laid down as true 


41 


against the lord paramount, in behalf of the lord of an up¬ 
per fief, were likewise to be admitted against the latter, in 
behalf of the owner of an inferior fief. The same maxims 
were also to be applied to the possessor of a still lower 
fief; they farther descended to the freeman and to the 
peasant; and the spirit of liberty, after having circulated 
through the different branches of the feudal subordination, 
thus continued to flow through successive homogeneous 
channels; it forced a passage into the remotest ramifica¬ 
tions, and the principle of primeval equality became everywhere 
diffused and established: a sacred principle, which neither 
injustice nor ambition can erase ; which exists in every 
breast, and to exert itself, requires only to be awakened 
among the numerous and oppressed classes of man¬ 
kind.” 

Co-Cval with the first of our Colonies was the Petition of 
Right—that Magna Charta of a more liberal age — present¬ 
ed by Lord Coke and his enlightened compeers; and the 
founders of the American Colonies brought with them its 
spirit , if not its letter—brought with them the maxims and 
the sentiments of civil liberty ; not engrossed on parchment, 
but written upon the tablets of their memories — inscribed 
upon the portals of their hearts—garnered up in the cham¬ 
bers of their souls; and the very first man that leaped from 
the deck of the May-Flower upon the Rock of Plymouth, 
was a living incarnation of the spirit of liberty — armed at all 
points — in head, and heart, and limb—to assert and vindi¬ 
cate ALL HIS RIGHTS AS Man ! 

Our political emancipation was not achieved, nor our free 
system of government established, by virtue of the discovery , 
or origination , by us, of any of the principles or maxims of 
civil liberty ; but by the intellectual labors of our fathers, in 
collecting, translating, developing, and arranging pre¬ 
viously acquired notions of political rights and powers into 
a new form of polity. Our Declaration of Independence 
but reinstated the people in their ancient and original rights. 
The truths which it proclaimed required no labored argu- 


42 


ment, or formal demonstration, to cause them to be under¬ 
stood and appreciated; they were “ self-evident” and only 
required to be announced, to challenge the universal assent 
of mankind. Nowhere else, however, have these princi¬ 
ples—these “self-evident truths,” now tending to their just 
supremacy — ever received either full development, or prac¬ 
tical development. No, it was reserved to the statesmen 
of America to give them form and substance, as well as 
force and efficiency: and when they asserted — through 
Mr. Jefferson — that “ all men are created equal; that they 
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 
rights; that to secure these rights governments are institu¬ 
ted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent 
of the governed,” they embraced all that was requisite to 
constitute a clear and perfect compendium of human rights, 
as well as a faithful epitome of all the appropriate functions 
and duties of human government. It is natural and, proper, 
therefore, that the oppressed and down-trodden of all na¬ 
tions, who would follow in our steps, should look with 
eagerness, and with assurance, to us. Connected, as we 
are, by example, as well as by s}unpathy, with the success¬ 
ful advancement of these great principles, our country must, 
necessarity, be regarded as their peculiar champion and 
guardian ; and responsible, as such, for their preservation 
and farther development. We owe it, then, to ourselves, 
to our children, and to the whole family of man, to be true 
and faithful to the sacred trust which has been confided to 
our care. Superior, as we are, to all other nations, in well 
defined and regulated liberty, so too, let us be superior to 
all others in holy efforts to extend and perpetuate the prin¬ 
ciples we have rendered immortal. 

The socially and politically oppressed of all nations have 
a right'to look to us for encouragement, for guidance, and 
relief—have a right to look to us for the performance of 
the promises we have tacitly made ; the realization of the 
hopes we have virtually inspired, and the fulfilment of the 
lofty destiny to which we are pledged. May such be the 


43 


ardour and constancy of our devotion to the honor and 
welfare of our country—such the tenor of our conduct and 
course of action, as never to cast a cloud over their earnest 
expectations, chill the fervor of their desires, or blast the 
blossom of their hopes ! No, let them still look with confi¬ 
dence to us for counsel and support—still hail our country 
as the cynosure of the social world, whose pure and steady 
light shall never bewilder or betray—as a political Eldo¬ 
rado, teeming with blessings more precious than gold— 
more desirable than sapphires —more valuable than ru¬ 
bies. 

And yet, alas ! a day may come, when that light shall 
be dimmed, and those privileges and blessings extinguished 
forever. Yes, a day—a fatal day of jealousy and of dis¬ 
cord, of passion and of parricide—may come, when her 
beauty and her strength, her faculties and her hopes shall 
sink together in the dark abyss of that illimitable ocean, 
which must, at last, absorb all perishable things ! But, 
however crushing the blow, or terrible the doom that may 
await us—overwhelmed, prostrated, shivered into frag¬ 
ments, though we may be, yet, now—now, thank God, 
our immortality is secure 1 The glory of our deeds—the 
splendour of our example—the magic of our name—the 
spirit of our institutions and laws, will live forever and 
ever—beacon lights to all the nations of all the earth. 

Yet, abiding and immortal as our name, our spirit and 
our principles shall be, let us be admonished by the omin¬ 
ous sounds and mystic voices that come wandering and 
wailing from the ruins of the past—ever shrieking as they 
come, this significant and appalling truth—“ Fallen Repub¬ 
lics rise no more forever! And though their spirit may live 
to animate others, it can never, never more re-animate them¬ 
selves /” 

Not so, however, with other systems of government. 
They are susceptible of renovation—possess, within them¬ 
selves, certain recuperative powers or principles; and 
though fallen to-day, may rise again to-morrow—renewed 


44 


and invigorated. Even the physical world may be smitten 
by the pestilence, swept by the whirlwind, or convulsed 
and shattered into atoms by the earthquake ; and }^et, a 
better, and a fairer , may spring from its ruins—Hope still 
remains to raise new worlds upon the desolation ! But, 
when a moral pestilence shall have seized upon the vitals of 
a republic—when the storms of treason and corruption shall 
beat upon it, and the baser passions — those earthquakes 
of the social world — shall shake its integrity and devour its 
energies, then, then, for a truth, have Despair and Death 
already marked it for their own ! ! 

Invoke the authority of the past, and it yvill answer in 
the spirit of these remarks. Regard, for a moment, the 
causes which promoted the disasters, or achieved the 
destruction of former republics—ponder well their histo¬ 
ries, and you will find their every page—blurred by folly, 
or blackened by crime, though they may be—pregnant with 
fearful admonitions and salutary instruction. Be warned 
then, I beseech you, by the teachings of the past, to shun 
the follies and the wrongs which accelerated the downfall 
of past republics. Keep ever in your minds this accredited 
axiom — “ like causes produce Tike effects,” and strive to 
shun their errors and their vices; strive to shun that mystic 
doom—that irrevocable decree, which invariably associates 
the privileges and the blessings with the curses and the priva¬ 
tions of empires. Be warned, I say s , by this invariable law 
— this evident ordination from on high — to abjure those 
social and political vices, which are ever sure to enervate 
and destroy the vitality and prosperity of nations. 

And if there be one bolt, in all the armory of Heaven, 
quicker, and hotter, and more fatal than the rest, let it 
descend for the certain destruction of him, who shall basely 
betray the institutions whose lights he has enjoyed, and 
for whose protection he is pledged — nay, for the destruc¬ 
tion of him, and such as him, who shall refuse to offer up, 
when needs be, their lives, their fortunes-—their all, in 
defence of their country’s rights and their country’s wel- 



4o 


fare : For who does not know, that the constancy and 
patriotism of her sons constitute the only shield of her 
defence ; or who need be told, that their virtue and intelli¬ 
gence form the chief rampart of her strength, and the only 
reliable foundation of her hopes ? 

I call upon you, then, my fellow-citizens—and especially 
upon you, gentlemen of the Typographical Society—as 
you love your country, and would bear aloft her fortunes 
and her fame, to cherish the principles upon which her 
free institutions rest. Address yourselves with zeal and 
alacrity to the duties—the important and imperative duties 
—which, as Americans and as patriots, devolve upon you. 
Strengthen and preserve the federal bond, by cultivating a 
spirit of unity — of mutual regard and mutual forbearance, 
on the one hand ; and by sternly reprobating, on the other, 
any and every attempt to mar its harmony, or alienate the 
confidence and sympathies of its members. Regard, at 
the same time, with especial detestation , the traitor and par¬ 
ricide who would dare trench upon the rights and powers 
reserved to the States, or invade their acknowledged sove¬ 
reignty : for in this sovereignty consists the true life 
of the republic. It is — if I may be allowed the figure — 
the vital ligature which binds its different members together. 
Remove or dissever it, and the life-blood gushes from every 
vein and artery of the system—cementing and consolidat¬ 
ing the federal power ; but effectually undermining the rights 
of the States , and the liberties of the people . 

I call upon you, then, my brother printers — as promi¬ 
nent among those who constitute, and are hereafter to con¬ 
stitute the life-guard of liberty and of letters—to defend, 
with energy and constancy, the integrity of the federal 
union. Yes, I implore you, whose peculiar province and 
duty it is to marshal the way in freedom, in knowledge, 
and in civilization, to come up—in these years of trial and 
of temptation—to the help and rescue of your country. 
And from whom can the aid required more properly be 
demanded? The most efficient auxiliary, evidently, would 


4G 


be the enlightened and liberal statesman ; and where are 
such statesmen more likely to be found, than in the Printing 
Office? that practical nursery of knowledge — especially 
political knowledge. Have they not already furnished us 
with Statesmen and Philosophers whose fame , is world¬ 
wide, and the record of whose achievements constitutes the 
proudest page in our country’s history ? Most of those 
honored and venerated ones, alas ! have gone to their rest. 
You are to take their places. You, too, are to share in the 
responsibility of enlightening, of developing, and of direct¬ 
ing the mind and the energies of your country. Let it be 
the constant, the earnest desire and prayer of your hearts — 
as it is the desire and the prayer of all—that the counsels 
of your minds may be so enlightened, and the purposes of 
your hearts so directed, that your country—as she rejoices 
in the beauty of her heritage, and the glory of her destiny 
— shall hail you as benefactors, and with willing hand, 
record your names high on the roll of her gifted and cho¬ 
sen ones. 







LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


0 019 308 916 1 



